Now when all players are aware that the tournament continued, I suggest that you post deadline until all games for particular round need to be joined. Who fails to join his/her 3 games before deadline, and still wants to play a game, then give him/her to play on Random/Escalating/Chained/Sunny vs someone from players who did not play their 3 games yet (send pm, and first come-first serve basis) or from someone from players who already played their 3 games, if nobody wants to play from pool of players who did not play 3 games. This situation is very likely to happen in last rounds, especially if number of players is odd like in this round. With odd number of players, like 21, it is possible to play 31,5 total games in the round, which means in case that all player joins 3, one player would be without an opponent.

Why I suggest this addition to rules?If there is no deadline to join all games, then it can happen that players are only waiting on his/her favorite maps which nobody else wants to join. Until when they have right to do so? Later, those players can say that they could not find opponents while truth is that they had free empty slot to join throughout the whole round, but they choose not to join and rather to wait only on favorite map. I am not saying that players should not wait on their favorite maps, I am saying that if they wait and it is obvious that nobody will join, then they should join another game in spirit of the tournament, because it is not anyone's privilege to play on his/her chosen map in case that he/she cannot find an opponent for it.

agentcom wrote:We could also cut down on the number of games made. It doesn't matter if you make 3 games of the type I requested if none of them get joined.

So do you try to find mechanisms how to 'force' people to play what they do not want? There is nothing wrong in having a lot of maps, it is plenty of opportunity that players choose what they really want and enjoy, instead of being forced to enter the only map left (for player who reads pm about new round the last), which may be map with special strategy requested by player who is specialist for that strategy.

Do you think players have privileges to play only what they want in this tourney? They may try of course and if someone will join that is great for them, but if nobody is interested to join then they do not have privilege to force others to play their maps.

All player have played Out of 21 Player, All these Player have not decided the result yetdazzla35 already joined 3 game and playingdouitashimashite already joined 3 game and playingdapp69er already joined 3 game, 2 game played and playing with douitashimashite on the decider turu2001 already joined 3 game, 2 game played and playing with josko.ri on the deciderAgentcom-already joined 3 game,1 game played , 1 game playing with major_pain , 1 game playing with josko.ri

All these player have not play 3 game yet briggs1209, 2 game done, thru to round 32 hiitsmestevie1, 2 game done, thru to round 32sniper08, 2 game done, thru to round 32dako, , 1 game done,thru to round 32, waiting for Player in Randomcodierose, 1 game done, thru to round 32

agentcom wrote:We could also cut down on the number of games made. It doesn't matter if you make 3 games of the type I requested if none of them get joined.

So do you try to find mechanisms how to 'force' people to play what they do not want? There is nothing wrong in having a lot of maps, it is plenty of opportunity that players choose what they really want and enjoy, instead of being forced to enter the only map left (for player who reads pm about new round the last), which may be map with special strategy requested by player who is specialist for that strategy.

Do you think players have privileges to play only what they want in this tourney? They may try of course and if someone will join that is great for them, but if nobody is interested to join then they do not have privilege to force others to play their maps.

I don't understand the hostility here ...

Josko, part of this tournament has been the wide variety of map selection provided in part by our input. But there's no point in having everyone come in and request games if those games aren't going to be filled. This doesn't help people have more choice. It cuts down on the choice that everyone has, including the people who don't request maps. You seem to be concerned with players getting "the opportunity to choose what they want," but then you seem upset when I mention a correction that allows for just that. I'm not saying we should make exactly the number of required games, but what we have now is far too excessive.

As wolfmaster just pointed out, there are only 5 more players who can join more games and two of them have 2 slots free. But we have 70 slots (35 games) available. Even if all those players use up the remaining slots (except 1 who will have to only play 2 due to the odd number), then we have 64 extra slots available. With 21 players going into this round and 3 slots per player, that means that over twice as many games were created as could fill. I don't think that there has been that proportion of surplus games in any other round in this tournament.

For this round, 7 people requested settings that I can see. MC could've made 1 each of those and then 30 or 40 other games on different settings and cut down the surplus games immensely. I think that 30 or 40 other games provides people with plenty of options and increases the chances that once a player selects a game, then it will be joined by someone else.

agentcom wrote:We could also cut down on the number of games made. It doesn't matter if you make 3 games of the type I requested if none of them get joined.

So do you try to find mechanisms how to 'force' people to play what they do not want? There is nothing wrong in having a lot of maps, it is plenty of opportunity that players choose what they really want and enjoy, instead of being forced to enter the only map left (for player who reads pm about new round the last), which may be map with special strategy requested by player who is specialist for that strategy.

Do you think players have privileges to play only what they want in this tourney? They may try of course and if someone will join that is great for them, but if nobody is interested to join then they do not have privilege to force others to play their maps.

I don't understand the hostility here ...

Josko, part of this tournament has been the wide variety of map selection provided in part by our input. But there's no point in having everyone come in and request games if those games aren't going to be filled. This doesn't help people have more choice. It cuts down on the choice that everyone has, including the people who don't request maps. You seem to be concerned with players getting "the opportunity to choose what they want," but then you seem upset when I mention a correction that allows for just that. I'm not saying we should make exactly the number of required games, but what we have now is far too excessive.

As wolfmaster just pointed out, there are only 5 more players who can join more games and two of them have 2 slots free. But we have 70 slots (35 games) available. Even if all those players use up the remaining slots (except 1 who will have to only play 2 due to the odd number), then we have 64 extra slots available. With 21 players going into this round and 3 slots per player, that means that over twice as many games were created as could fill. I don't think that there has been that proportion of surplus games in any other round in this tournament.

For this round, 7 people requested settings that I can see. MC could've made 1 each of those and then 30 or 40 other games on different settings and cut down the surplus games immensely. I think that 30 or 40 other games provides people with plenty of options and increases the chances that once a player selects a game, then it will be joined by someone else.

You suggestion seemed to me like you want to have exactly the same number of available maps how much there is available slots, and on that way force players to play on their unloved maps, as who read pm of new round the last, there is possibility he will need to join what is left what nobody wanted. Currently there were double available games than there are slots (Mc made 63 games, and there are lots to play maximal 31.5 games) and I think it is fair proportion when number of players are below 20. Next round there will be let's say like 18 players, so maximal number of games are 27. If he made 54 games, that is acceptable and do not force anyone to play what they do not want, but we will have wide variety of choice to fill games.

My suggestion was with this purpose... What would be done if for example nobody joined your AYB game, and there comes new and new week, and maybe all other players joins their game, so how do you suggest we would solve problem that you could not find an opponent?

My answer to previous question and therefore my initial suggestion is this: Make deadline, exact date and hour, and who do not joins until the deadline, plays on random/escalating/Sunny vs someone who is interested to play a game, from pool of players who did not play 3 games already. If there is not interest among those players, then one player who already played 3 games will face the player who did not find an opponent. And which is your answer/proposed solution to previous question?

So, if your strategy is waiting on map/settings that is your favorite one, it is fine, but then accept risk that if nobody joins it until the deadline, you will have to play random map because at the end nobody has privilege to play (or call it "farm") on his own map/settings, unless he can find someone willing to challenge him.

And there is no hostility from my side, just wish that everyone has equal conditions in the tournament, not that someones (often forum users) are privileged to play on their maps while others do not. I was also once in situation like you, in round 29 I had 0-2 and waited with my third game on Hive map, as I considered it to be my the best map. For several days nobody joined to Hive map, and what should I do? Wait until I remain the only player left with waiting game and then cry in forum how I could not find an opponent? Instead of that, I joined Africa II, which was my first game ever on that map, and luckily won. I considered unfair to force someone to join Hive later by organizer, as it was more than obvious that nobody wanted to join vs me on his own will for several days. I know the bad feeling when I needed to drop Hive and join the Africa II with coin toss chance to win, so therefore I joined your AYB to give you chance to play what you want, but be sure I will give you hell of a fight

wolfmaster wrote:All player have played Out of 21 Player, All these Player have not decided the result yetdazzla35 already joined 3 game and playingdouitashimashite already joined 3 game and playingdapp69er already joined 3 game, 2 game played and playing with douitashimashite on the decider turu2001 already joined 3 game, 2 game played and playing with josko.ri on the deciderAgentcom-already joined 3 game,1 game played , 1 game playing with major_pain , 1 game playing with josko.ri

All these player have not play 3 game yet briggs1209, 2 game done, thru to round 32 hiitsmestevie1, 2 game done, thru to round 32sniper08, 2 game done, thru to round 32dako, , 1 game done,thru to round 32, waiting for Player in Randomcodierose, 1 game done, thru to round 32

Josko, I have no doubt you will give me quite a run for my money on AYB I'm a little worried right now, cuz like you noticed, I'm 0-2 this round going into that game.

It sounds like what we disagree on is how many extra games should be created. I think that twice as many slots as there are players able to fill them is too many and you think it's just about right. We both think that it leads to a bunch of unfilled games and situations like you describe being in yourself, but you don't mind that possibility and I don't like it. Agree to disagree on that one then.

But for what it's worth, I'd still like to express to the TO that I think that is too many games. But now (unfortunately for me), the TO has the opposite viewpoint from you. So I guess we'll leave it to the TO to decide.

Also, I should note that I agree that the players in the forum shouldn't be given a huge advantage; although I do think that the forum suggestions are a good source of variety so that the TO doesn't have to come up with everything. And most of the eliminated variety in my suggestion actually comes from reducing the number of games made by the people suggesting games here. I think you could even cut it down to 1 game for each suggestion and maybe 1 related game (i.e. same map, but slightly different settings). I think in later rounds, you could even cut it down to just 1 game from each suggestion and the rest from the mind of the TO.

When HA was running this tournament, he took requests for maps and settings, but not from everyone playing -- just a fraction of the surviving combatants. Now that the list is getting quite short, to do the same sort of thing, mcshanester29 could simply take requests only from the first one or two to post, which might be a bit unfair to those who cannot access this site 24 hours a day, or he could simply select one combatant at random from whom he would invite a request.

ender516 wrote:When HA was running this tournament, he took requests for maps and settings, but not from everyone playing -- just a fraction of the surviving combatants. Now that the list is getting quite short, to do the same sort of thing, mcshanester29 could simply take requests only from the first one or two to post, which might be a bit unfair to those who cannot access this site 24 hours a day, or he could simply select one combatant at random from whom he would invite a request.

Recently, when number of players become lower, HA started to make random choice of 5 players to post their map choices and sent pm out with result of random.org about which 5 players got the right to choose maps. I think that is good idea to continue with, so regular forum posters will not have advantage over other players who do not read forums.